#yes this is in context of people reviewing the Wish film

[niyana-the-ambiguous-mobian]

The rest of the world in the last couple of weeks: "The Princess and the Frog was the last 2D film Disney had ever made before switching to 3D animation."

Me: "Winnie the Pooh (2011) deserves more respect than this WTF."

[tagomago]

MY MACBETH REVIEW. except that makes it sound so formal this is just me saying things. and it’s long too so no one will read im sure except like three of you 🙏

spoilers for the production if ur seeing it i suppose but not really. and spoilers for macbeth but i mean it’s 400 years old so that’s your problem

okay so it was crazy good. really sort of…bare but in a sort of gothic and chilling way. it felt modern without being too full of itself. the sound design was great and i also really loved the celtic folk music they had going on. i ADORED the witches at the start as voices in vapours and also how they had the whole company play them in their later scene. i think it’s possibly the most successful demonstration of macbeth being tormented/haunted that i’ve seen. the choreography was wonderful both here and in the final battle. plus i adored the donmar it’s my first time going there and man. it being so small is wonderful! it really is the most intimate theatre in london

context wise i especially thought how they focused on the loss of a child was engaging. it’s something that i personally haven’t seen focused on much in a lot of productions and it was really interesting that they only had one child cast member to play the children. i know that’s common in productions like this with limited casts but it was really made to be read into. like it wasn’t subtext it was text. that they set him up as THEIR child at the start, and throughout macbeth would interact with tenderness before violence was so so interesting and well-done. that they were haunted by their lost child who they saw in everything and yet still murdered. and the fact that fleance and young siward were both CHILDREN was like. crazy. sickening even. when macbeth kills young siward it was mad too like i gasped as did half the theatre.

another thing is the fact that even though it was a ‘shorter’ production it didn’t feel idk. frantic or rushed. i think coming off the back of seeing lear with kenneth branagh i was unsure about it bc that DID feel rushed and lost a lot of emotion bc of it. this wasn’t the case at allll with macbeth it felt perfectly paced and remained thrilling and tense throughout.

i think some people think the headphone thing was gimmicky but personally i really enjoyed it. it leant itself to parts of the performance (eg. whispers, clinking daggers, the sort of things u wouldn’t typically hear) and i enjoyed how it built atmosphere and tension but my favourite bit of it is that it sort of added a level of separation between say, the ghost of banquo and the witches and the ‘reality’ of the scene. without the headphones they do not exist. it’s involving but also plays with what is real and what isn’t. i did actually remove them a couple of times and tbh i did enjoy some parts of the performances more without them but overall it was utilised well and was more than a gimmick to me.

performances ummm. they were brilliant. cush jumbo was awesome and has such a stage presence which is so important for lady macbeth. very understated charisma that rlly lends itself to all of her character…i LOVED the porter they were soooo fun and funny and did great audience work AND gave me my pantomime fix for the year. and of course david tennant was brilliant. the hype was real he is very good isn’t he. and i’m saying this as a frequent killjoy. and i did like to see him get thrown around and picked up by women

okay ummm yes. i hope they film it so u can all see it alternatively i wish you all well in getting no-shows/daily tix/standing

[girlfriendsofthegalaxy]

there's been an uptick in people asking if they can do tuesdayposts too (yes, hi hello yes, my god, please do i want to read them, the format isn't copyrighted or anything) which made me think about how i use the tuesdayposts as an excuse to go looking for weird shit and why i'm so annoyed when something is recommended to me but the rec doesn't give me a good pitch. this grew into a digression about the function of a critic and what i use reviews for. and what like axes of things i find important or what i use various sources for. so it's a separate post now bc there's not a real...point to it, mostly getting my thoughts in order. also it is very long

while i would not wish the title of "culture critic" upon my worst enemy, let's sidestep “oooh all critics/tastemakers/influencers are bullshit”. imo you’re supposed to find one whose taste aligns with yours and THEN use their reviews to find new things. if my taste aligns with yours, cool! if you're just here to see what weird shit i made or pulled out of an estate sale this week, also cool!

i think the most successful discussion of a work is "what is it/what's the pitch, what is it TRYING to do given the context of the time and people who created it, does it accomplish its goals or tell its story in a coherent fashion" and then finally what i think most people get most hung up on is "do I PERSONALLY think this work accomplished its goals or storytelling in a manner i found reasonable/understandable/liked".

i really, really, really hate the style of review that tells me nothing about the work except there's a token gay person in it. i saw zero useful reviews of OFMD before i gave up and watched the first ep myself.

here are some people who fulfill the above useful criteria, i pay attention to, and why their recs work for me: gita jackson, a culture/games critic over at vice knows the difference between a movie being Good and a movie being Fun, and is a queer person under 30 with a film degree so our needs align on several important axes. so i waited to watch the rpatz batman until they wrote an article and they said if it was fun or not.

cyberexboyfriend on instagram and i think mainly tiktok (lots of crossposts) has opinions i agree with about mcmansion architecture, and an eye for the weird late eighties through early oughts fashion and art that fell through the cracks. like the media that fuels the Extremely Online art i generally find annoying, but the source media of edited anime or fantasy movie screencaps on tshirts is generally pretty cool. this fills an important function to me bc i like going "ah! i know where that's from" when i see a hot girl in joanns wearing a shirt from vapor95.

i follow exactly four people on letterboxd and they are the aforementioned critics plus two mutuals bc i already know their general media tastes align with mine. wendy @dying-suffering-french-stalkers is very very good at finding things that have a certain quality of emotion to them. not full horror, not full tragedy, and not full melancholia either, but a catharsis or a putting an era to bed gently and turning the lights out when you're done. honey @birdcfparadise is willing to sit through a lotta goddamn nonsense in order to report back about the good ones and we both have a finely honed taste in the dilfs of the silver screen. where the fuck else am i going to get vital intelligence like this

furthermore these two are the only people i trust about Classic Movie (tm) Opinions. like, they will tell me if a movie that is very much a Product of its Era (tm) is worth sitting through the things that make it very much a Product of its Era (tm). i haunt the letterboxd activity page to see what they've added to their watchlists

i pay more attention to @morrak's book recs and shove them to the front of my list bc we have the same not-quite-engineer-but-enough-to-be-dangerous kind of brain and literally all of his recs have hit, including the ones where i'm like "ough this is very good but i need to come back to it later". i pay more attention to whatever the fuck @believerindaydreams is up to be we both like the same sort of heavily allusive, love letter to pulp kinds of stories.

my point is not "everyone needs to make more friends and if you don't have a richly layered online friend group of nearly a decade in some cases funneling art to you through the medium of tumblr then you're toast" but like. along with critics, friends' recs and things i found while trying to find friends' recs are a huge driver of the tuesdayposts. people fundamentally want to share the cool new shit they've found. that's why we're all here, blogging

[beardisable]

yeah yall are right puss in boots the last wish FUCKS

i almost wrote the last fish, which should def have been a joke in the movie

i havent regularly watched movies for a while, i had completely forgotten how just. fun dreamworks is, theres puns and jokes happening all the time and its just. delightful and nice and often stupid but still funny, i loved it a lot, and needed it after. A Day.

there were so many stories happening but all of them got resolved and it was great and adorable and i teared up multiple times, like w realizing the bears and goldie Were the family they were looking for, and that Perrito had what he wanted the whole time, and how kitty and puss ended up getting it too... also dreamworks always suprises me with the epic action scenes like...

speaking of that. yes ofc i saw the death wolf everywhere and was a little interested bc of that and hell yes he's hot and scary and cool i loved his inclusion

most of all i LOVED all the fairy tale references! like obviously there were gonna be a lot but whenever i recognized something it made me soooooo happy like you wouldnt believe, i grew up with fairytales and myths and stories (like most of us obvs) and i fell in love with all my books and. its just so nice to get the little references and tropes that have come from them :D

the first 20 minutes were so wild, idk why i guess ive watched too many slower movies or series so the immediate action and "end" and change was just WHUH WHAT IS HAPPENING EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING DAMN I LOVE IT but what i noticed immediately of course was the ANIMATION and MUSIC DESIGN like DAAAAAAAAAAMN!!! absolutely gorgeous and stylized in the cool way and sound cues and music giving SO much to every scene and. aaaahhhhhhhh art of film... i get why people do this shit its awesome

the place i watched from had subtitles(which i kinda need at this point, audio processing troubles grr) but literally every SINGLE spanish word they transcribed as [speaking spanish] like. I KNOW SHE SAID SI EVEN I KNOW THAT, which wasnt like too bad, most of the words used i could understand from context and just. them being used often in other english media w spanish in it, but Boi. i need to find if someone has compiled the language used to see if i missed anything i didnt recognize as Symbolic or Significant... ik there was smth when death left the OVAL/CATEYE OF FIREEEE like la muertos/muerte which means death ik but idk if there was smth else there i missed in the sentence construction/meaning bc i didnt quite hear it/understand it

why did this turn into a wholeass review. anyways watch puss in boots the last wish is fucking awesome and fun (also watch the first movie i remember liking it)

[iamkjsmediocrefilmreviews]

Seven (Se7en)

1995 - 2h7m - Rated R

Directed by David Fincher

Written by Andrew Kevin Walker

If you’re a fan of crime movies or just Brad Pitt, there’s a good chance you’ve seen Seven. If you haven’t…It’s currently available on that streaming service we all share with our families.

Directed by David Fincher, this dark drama truly set the tone for not only more incredible Fincher films, but the crime genre as a whole. After a somewhat rocky directing debut with the third Alien installment, David Fincher’s sophomore film Seven helped to set him apart from similar directors at the time. I wish I could have seen this movie when it premiered in 1995; I’m sure there were fans like me that were anxious to see what he would work on next.

Cinematography is an important part of any memorable film and Seven is no exception. Especially as of late, people are always discussing the “vibe” of a movie they’ve recently seen. This vibe is created by the Director of Photography, also know as the Cinematographer. The DOP for Seven was Darius Khondji, who also worked on beautifully shot films such as Midnight in Paris and Uncut Gems. I have no doubt that this movie jump started Fincher’s love of poorly-lit rooms and consistently rainy doorways. It showcases many artistic choices that continue to reappear in his later films. I dig it.

The screenplay is written by Andrew Kevin Walker who’s writing credit include the Burton/Depp Sleepy Hollow and Jason Segel’s modern day chamber film Windfall on Netflix. I think Seven starts a bit slow, but in my experience, that’s how Walker works. He takes the time to introduce characters and establish the world they live in. The writing isn’t flawless. In my own critical review, I rated this category 3/5. It’s important to let the audience figure things out, but lay the context clues to fully understand the story. This movie does that well. And the fact that the writing allows for viewers to “pick up the pieces” means you’ll be pausing it to explain to your parents or discussing it with coworkers the next day. The only downside for me was the use of an overpowering score paired with the panning view of the newest crime scene. It is ominous, sure, but almost distracting at times. With new tv shows and all-star films emerging everyday (some with equally awkward music choices) most detective movies can seem trite. But I think Seven’s style of storytelling through dialogue is intriguing and put simply, it works. It probably wouldn’t work as well as it does with just any actors. If you’re not a fan of either actor in this starring duo, why are you even interested in reading this far?

Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are cast as recently promoted “rookie” detective Mills and close-to-retirement officer Somerset, respectively. The conversations between them are written in such a way that they become the glue that holds the story together. If you’re not listening to the back-and-forth of this team, it’s all too easy to miss critical plot details. Detective Mill's wife, Tracey is played by a young and pretty Gwyneth Paltrow, though unfortunately, that’s the only way she seems to be portrayed. Though it’s probably intentional, her time on screen always seems to be cut short. Kevin Spacey (in what some might say was his prime) is our intelligent yet terrifying antagonist, John Doe. He doesn’t talk much either, but delivers an unforgettable performance. (He won the MTV Movie award for Best Villian in 1996.) Both these characters are important to the film’s story, but somehow, I still find myself wanting to know more about them. You’re sure to recognize a few other faces in the background of these scenes, as well. The casting only strengthens the authenticity of the world Fincher builds. Even though at times you may find yourself checking your watch, when the film’s concluding few minutes come around, you’ll be hooked until credits roll.

So, is Seven worth a couple hours of your time? Yes. It was one of the first of its kind and has aged rather gracefully. Sure, there are other films with similar plots, but the building blocks of dark, edgy crime dramas are visible here. I love that about it and any true movie fan would, too.

[akria23]

I won’t do a full review of the show today - I’ll wait until after the Special and post it along with my Complete Analysis for LeoFiat. (Speaking of - apparently the special’s trailer releases on Oct 29th per MeMindy official Twitter. And the Special releases on Nov 6 [at least this is the date from the guide I’ve been seeing I haven’t seen it posted on MeMindy’s page yet but I could’ve missed it]. So we’re not done yet 😘

Anyway, the episode….

To be frank I was disappointed. I won’t say it was writing per say but production for this episode was very much a mess. The camera work was…questionable. It’s like they ran out of story and so to meet run time they lingered on shots for absolutely no reason. And then the set up for the s€x scene really or ratted me because it was the last s€x scene of the season so I def had expectations. The repeated banging of the painting…and I swear that thing moved or switched sides 😒. But the camera work here wasn’t working for me either.

😌 Fiat was carrying in that red suit tho…

So my issues with writing. When Fiat said he didn’t know who Leo would choose I tell “Lord make it make sense 🙃” Leo who cannot separate love and sex, Leo who had NEVER looked at anyone other than Fiat…we’re supposed to believe that Fiat just found a deep well of insecurity for the same girl he’s been reminding that she wish she was him all season?! Mame make it make sense babe 😪 Now I know I should consider the context of the show, that Fiat is having insecurities because of Leo’s outburst but it’s just not believable even in the set up of that context. Now if he had just left it at I didn’t know if you would choose to follow me…instead of making it sound like there was an actual choice to be made between him and Punn…then yes I would’ve been on board but instead I was punching air cause it was perfect until then.

My other issue with the writing itself was the dialogue about possessiveness - let me make this clear I have never been or will never be one of those ppl who fight for censorship in art. You will never see me say - This show/series/film/book is good because it has a ‘healthy’ relationship. Great writing can embrace all types of tropes - be it ‘toxic’ or ‘healthy’ and I’m more concerned with good writing than so called healthy storylines. I don’t need art t think for me. I believe in pushing critical thinking rather than the concept that art creates bad ppl - bad ppl engage with art, not the other way around. This is my opinion and I’m stating it so there is no confusion to what I’m about to say next - Mame should not have included this specific dialogue. Not because it was toxic - like I said I don’t care about that, in fact I enjoy possessive pairings/tropes when it comes to stories as they can be quite interesting dynamics and can make for a tension filled read. I’d even say a huge part of the reason I like Leo and fiat is because that concept always played in the subtext or casually within the text it self - I speak about this in my analysis of the two but the whole aspect of Fiat sleeping around to spite Leo is literally speaking to this concept. The reason it’s spite, the reason it’s supposed to get a reaction, the reason he later reproached Leo about this is because he was giving away what was Leo’s & Leo was showing that he cared or was affected. This made him angry and in TharnType2 we constantly see him throwing out taunts & challenges over it. The minute she added this dialogue in I could help but sigh because I feel like she could’ve gotten away with it but the moment that dialogue slipped I knew people were gonna be upset. The same people who had been calling the show healthy despite this concept of ownership already being branded in the text itself. Leo telling Fiat that he’s always been ‘his’. Fiat telling Leo that he could do anything he pleases to his body. This isn’t just sexy talk. This is Fiat once again dialing into the concept that his body, his entire being, belongs to Leo and therefore he gives Leo the right to any & everything he wants to it.

The reason I didn’t like the scene with the talk about Leo’s possessiveness is because they’d already cast a bad light on the mom for overt possessiveness and then here we have Leo saying that he’s a monster and he wants to lock Fiat away, they make a literal comparison between Leo & Fiats mom and they never contextualize it. Even though Fiat says you’ll never hurt me they didn’t really delve into that and they should have because viewers these days are not critical thinkers. They want the text to tell them exactly how to think and how to feel and they pick out one clump of dialogue or action and they state this is toxicity without contextualizing it by taking a look at the overall story. Is Leo possessive? Yes. Does that automatically mean something bad? No. Does that automatically make him like Fiats mom? No. Fiats mom was selfish in her possessiveness, she was abusive in it - physically and mentally. Leo has never once been abusive to Fiat, even asked for permission to be rough in sex play, even when jealous or angry he never actually seeks to lock away or harm Fiat. Most importantly Leo NEVER uses his sense of possessive to isolate Fiat from those he loves and those who loves him. He encourages Fiat to mend his relationships (his Dad, his step mom, and his sister, he even went with him to his Mom & pet Fiat guide the engagement despite her trying to separate him & Leo and despite knowing she always would he still agreed to Fiats right to come alone for following visits and trust him to not let her affect their relationship). He encourages Fiat to really see and appreciate how much others around him truly love him (for example his entire concept for his birthday surprise for Fiat was showing him not only how much he loved and appreciated him but how much all their family and friends did as well). However the moment people feel like they have something to call toxic and pick apart none of that matters any longer. The reputation of the relationship they had built until that moment disappeared for some viewers.

Also I feel like people lose the nuance of how their dynamic works - I’ve already seen ppl say that Leo has control issues and it’s just 😪🙄 eye roll worthy because if you understand their actual relationship you’d understand that yes Leo guides their relationship ship but Fiat has all the real control. The moment he says ‘world stop’ everything stops. The series has shown several times this fact, even the set up that brought us to the finale. Despite all his talk of wanting to lock Fiat away - the reality is that when Fiat stated they should go back to friends Leo never tried to block him in, trap him, stop him, or even challenge him. If it’s not something Fiat wants or something that will make Fiat happy Leo won’t do it, he won’t be it. Because he has always been indulgent to Fiats want & needs (even when it caused himself pain). Even this so called desire to lock fiat away is permission by Fiat. And when they speak of lock away and tie up - it’s another reference to their BDSM relationship. Which is something else they’ve kept subtle but constant in the text. They even show this concept in action by having them talk about how possessive the Red suit makes Leo feel and the result is not banishing Fiat to the dungeon, it’s them not going back to the party and chooses to have sexy alone time again with an addition to Discipline involved (reward / punishment system).

😮‍💨 Ive spent way too much text on this but hey I guess it’s something else to try to explain in my analysis. As far as other sections of the story. The basketball game was lackluster. But I did really love the conversation that they had on the basketball court by themselves.

Like I mentioned in my post about episode 11 - we were really shown how the past affected Leo, his own fears kinda being brought forth and so I was really happy that they had Fiat apologize for the pain he cause Leo during that time. I love the fact that they both understood that they’re not perfect and that perfection may not be achievable but that didn’t invalidate their love for one another and their commitment to giving themselves to that love.

Something I wish would have been delved into was basketball…like why basketball. Why is it the thing important for them to share. I can’t remember it ever being really clarified in the text (it might have in TT2 but 😬 I’m not willing to watch again to find out 😅) but I did want to add this element into my analysis i if anyone else remembers the why being mentioned…let me know please 😊

I have a section in my complete analysis for Leo and Fiat called Surrender where I talk about how their journey has been one of surrendering themselves to one another and to their love completely. In this episode there were a few things that I could touch to speak about in that section so while I may not be happy about the entire episode there were bits that I can touch on and so I’m excited about that as always.

[organic-sprolden]

So I watched the Dear Evan Hansen movie.

Here are my basic thoughts.

I cried 3 times, and it probably would've been more if I didn't know what was coming. Although, "I didn't fall, I let go" will always get me, even if I knew what was happening and exactly when.

I liked the fact that they had a lot of the original lines from the musical because it was just so much more quotable for me and likely every other DEH fan.

I was hesitant about the new songs at first, and disappointed at the loss of the classic Good For You, Anybody have a map and Disappear (not To Break In A Glove though, that song can burn.) but in context, A Little More and Anonymous Ones were pretty great.

I really loved the new ending where we see Connor in rehab singing his song, I love how we were able to see more of just him.

Not him through the perspective of others.

Also the ending when Evan confesses what he did was sweet I suppose, but there still weren't any repercussions for his actions. Which I'm pretty sure was the whole point if them adding in that scene, rather than having the Murphy's take the entire fall.

Honestly though, I don't mind it, It's not like I wanted Evan to get all the hate in the world. I just thought that if they went through the trouble of changing the story, they'd add some actual conflict.

I was wondering why they changed the setting of each of the songs. (for example, Waving Through The Window starting in his bedroom, and not after Connor pushes him. If I Could Tell Her being in the Murphy's living room and not in his bedroom, leading to the memorable and rather unfortunate first "kiss" on Zoe's dead brother's bed.) And why sometimes the songs seemed too rushed and a little out of place, despite it coming after the same line it can after in the musical. (For example, So Big/So Small.)

Also, the musical scenes were very underwhelming. Waving Through The Window, Sincerely Me, Only Us, For Forever, So Big/So Small, Words Fail all had so much potential. Moving from stage to film opens up so many possibilities for cinematic elements that's would elevate and induce many more emotions than it previously could. The songs were basically just the person sitting in one place, singing the song, maybe with a little dialogue in between verses.

I want to see more.

I want to feel the songs, even if I already know the musical soundtrack by heart. At times it felt as though they had the songs thrown into the script just because the theatre fans would riot if their favourite musical songs weren't in the film.

Which kinda sucks.

Alana was... interesting.

I feel like I hated her less in this, but it's probably because we just didn't get to see her. Anonymous Ones is a great premise for a sing and honestly I was going to cry for the reprise, but it just didn't hit as hard as I expected it to.

However, Anonymous Ones is the only song that had that X-factor the others were missing. I love that it showed that even if you think you're alone and forgotten, there's always other people. and sometimes, you get so caught up in your head that you don't take the time to notice what's right there. Or, as the song says, "The parts we can't tell, we carry them well, but that doesn't mean they're not heavy".

The thought that "no one will understand me, everyone else has a perfect life" is honestly a little selfish but it is a thought that a lot of people have. That is what I interpret Waving Through The Window as for the most part, and Anonymous Ones is basically the opposite.

The scene where Alana walks into the gym, and we see Evan in the background was really insightful to me. I appreciate that.

Jared is another one we didn't see often, so was Heidi (but of course, that's basically her whole character.) But with Jared, we lost some of the best moments of his sarcastic/teasing personality ("School shooter chic" is the main thing coming to mind.) As is, he didn't have much personality, and no real reason to even be in the movie, other than to be someone that Evan talks to to explain things to the viewing audience.

This Zoe was unexpectedly really great. Especially how she did Requiem. I will always appreciate and fully understand her reluctancy to just join the crowd and say "He was a great guy, he will be missed". Her having the backbone to say "No, he was an awful person to me" is really inspiring. so many people that were victims to abuse feel like they should just go along with it as not to dampen the vision others had of the person, but it's not right.

So yes, this Zoe did a really good job of bringing the book Zoe to life on screen.

Speaking of the book, I wish they had included Miguel. Even if it was just as the guy at the end who sent Evan the video, I wish they would've shown just a little callback to Connor's only true friend.

I feel like bringing him back, like in the book, at the end to talk to Evan would've been so much better than Evan spilling the beans then just reading all of Connor's favourite books from when he was 13.

I will probably eventually watch this again and maybey thouts will change, but as of right now, I rate this movie 7/10 on its own, and 4/10 in relation to the musical and the book.

(there's also a whole lot more o can say about the actual message behind all of this, the issues I have with the actual plot, and the casting concerns I have but for now, an open review and discussion will do.)

[polandspringz]

I love Encanto so much, but because I love it so much there’s so much more I wish it had done/there are areas where I feel like the story was really lacking. I was talking to @createandconstruct about it while I rewatched it and a big issue we agreed on was the marketing on the film. We both swore that we remembered in the trailers, Luisa being in the scene when Mirabel fell in the sand pit. Upon reviewing the trailers I could find, I saw that it must have been how the scenes were edited together. They used clips from “Surface Pressure” when Luisa and Mirabel are in the “dream sequence” and jumping over water or hanging off the mountain edge, and so the film was marketed as if Mirabel was going on a journey to save the miracle, and her sisters were joining her, rather than it being a mystery, and contained to one location.

I also feel as though the visuals during Luisa’s song were not the best choice. I understand the argument “it’s a children’s film”, but with it being such a dream sequence, the characters weren’t “going anywhere” or moving forward on the plot as they talked. Yes, we did learn about Luisa’s struggles through the lyrics, but just the visuals didn’t seem to match it (and I already have a problem with a lot of the animation in the songs feeling too close to Frozen or Moana’s visuals).

In terms of things I wished were more addressed in the film, one would be explaining the rift in Isabella and Mirabel’s relationship. It just seems odd that Isabela, who is older, seems to hate Mirabel so much, when usually as siblings get older they find it easier to get along (speaking as a younger sister). It would make sense for Mirabel to be annoyed by Isabela, but Isabela is like 18-21(?) so it feels strange for her to be so annoyed by Mirabel’s existence. And even if that still was the case, I wish we knew why Isabela felt this way, what caused them to be constantly annoyed by one another, how long has it been like this?

Create made a good point that in terms of the pacing, some of climatic events should’ve happened earlier in the film. If Abuela had blown up at Mirabel earlier (see the scene after “What Else Can I Do?”) and blamed Mirabel for the destruction because of the prophecy, then Mirabel would’ve had reason to leave and set off on a “journey”. Or she could have tried to- and instead, in the words of Create, “Casita should have ate her”. When Mirabel tried to leave on a journey, the house could have pulled her back in, forcing her to see what was going on in-between the walls, and then she would’ve encountered Bruno (so the big emotional rift happens earlier rather than so late in the film, but the scene of Casita falling apart would still happen later/where it originally happened, just changing the argument that precedes it).

I also always find myself scrutinizing stories whenever they give a historical context or setting. Encanto is pretty vague about when exactly it is set, but it seems to be sometime after one of the Civil Wars (correct me if I’m wrong) based on the type of camera that is seen taking photos in the film. Because of this, I found myself analyzing every song lyric or idiom that could be anachronistic to the time period, and the film doesn’t really have anything big like some modern pop culture reference (ignoring the “Let It Go” lyric at the end). However, during Luisa’s song, and again this is just a me thing, but when she sings about Hercules and Cerberus, I was like “Was that myth brought to Colombia before that time?”, like had books and writings of those myths been transported to the region so that by the period Encanto is set in, people would know what that is? Same thing with Bruno talking about telenovelas- would they have been invented by then, or referred to as that? This seems to be before televisions existed, so... (Again, this last paragraph was just my personal nitpicks)

[dontbipanicjonsa]

Did I just create another Tumblr account so I could write one (1) meta about GoT years after the show has ended? Yes. Yes, I did.

I just saw episode 7x04 and first of all, I would like to say a most heartfelt-

Yikes.

Yea no the Field of Fire scene is....many things, but a scene of triumph it is not. I'm going to say a lot of things now, all of which have already been said before I'm sure but oh well-

It's interesting that the show decided to have a scene humanising the Lannister army (especially Dickon Tarly) right before the invasion comes (I'm calling it an invasion coz that's what it is). Note that Dickon has appeared before, in season 6 and there he had next to no lines.

The first thing that strikes me about the Dothraki army approaching is that, yes, it is an invasion.

It comes out of seemingly nowhere. The Lannister army is caught completely unprepared, smack in the middle of a (morbidly) playful scene. The Dothraki look like invaders (because they are). They look terrifying and foreign (no one @ me about this- tell me if you won't shit your pants and wish they'd never crossed that damn sea if you had a Dothraki horde running at you full tilt). The Lannister army is shown literally quivering, and yet they stand their ground and fight bravely. We are meant to admire their grit.

Next, the scene very very clearly depicts the horrors of being burnt alive (for good reason- people watching the show seem to forget). This is shown repeatedly. The wagons are burning and the horses are running, trying to escape the fire. Soldiers are crawling into the water. Soldiers ripping off their helmets, their newly acquired burns visible.

I could go on, but the point is that the scene is filmed like a massacre, not a battle. The Lannister army never stood a chance. They put up the best fight they could, but they are essentially being butchered with their pants down. Is that meant to make me side with Dany? Yell in victory? Be like "Fuck yea, burn those Lannister fuckers, khaleesi". Uh

No.

Through it all, Danaerys and for most of the part, the Dothraki have the higher ground (coz dragons and horses). It creates an image, a story that is both familiar and unfamiliar. Dany setting her dragons and her Dothraki on people isn't new, but this is the first time we have sympathy for the people being burnt. The image created makes me think of...off the top of head? Uhhh bullies, strong crushing the weak, corporation (:/), murdered puppies, etc.

What did GMMR say? The villian is the hero of the other side? Hmm....

Danaerys is seemingly untouchable in this scene, but rather than making us feel awe, or making us feel powerful, triumphant, victorious whatever (through her)....we only feel dread, and a mounting horror.

Basically what I'm trying to find the right words to say is-

It's very hard to watch that scene and say "Yeah, you go girl".

Very hard. I can't. My reaction was more like-

"wtf have you unleashed on this continent? As if they didn't have enough shit to deal with already. You're burning the food?????? Gtfo this continent and take your lizards with you, invader".

Can you tell I really fucking hate conquering invaders? I do. The Targs and I do not get on.

On a seperate note, it's interesting to me that this is the same episode that has discourse about chosen kings/queens, why people follow Dany, and why Jon should bend the knee to her.

Let's examine-

Dany says the North chose Jon as their king because they believed he would do what's best for them, and since he himself believes that the North cannot beat the WW without Dany, he should let go of his pride (be a true king) and bend the knee, thus winning Dany's help in the fight against the WW. (Yes it wasn't exactly in those words but that's the crux of it, is it not?)

Now, the first thought that springs to mind is, what about her? This very argument can be turned against her. If she wants to be Queen of all seven kingdoms, and she believes Jon enough to promise to help him, should she not let go of her pride (be a true queen) and fight for the kingdom she wants to rule anyway? She is obviously somewhat shook by the cave paintings. The only concession I can give her here is that she doesn't have much reason to trust Jon here. It's a flimsy argument though- she does have reason to want the well-being of "her" kingdom. That's what monarchs do. That's what she expects Jon to do.

Still, I'm not entirely sure. The problem is that she's right. If his first priority is to protect his people, then giving up his crown should be a price that he's willing to pay. We can see Jon thinking about her words at the end of that scene, and I think that's because they struck a chord with him too.

I know that Jon does give up his crown to Dany sometime this season (I know the entire fucking story, I'm just watching it now for the first time for the first hand experience). So, can we say that Jon giving up his crown is his act of being a true king (someone who protects his people)? Yes, if his reason for bending the knee is to protect his people. Reasons matter. Context matters. Motivations matter. But we're not talking about that right now.

Let's look at the flip side. Would Dany give up her throne? This very same episode had Missandie talk poetic about Dany. It establishes that both Jon and Dany are monarchs chosen by their people. Jon is clearly skeptical of this. His questioning Missandie, and all his squinting (is the sun in his eyes or what????) all point to him not being sold on the Danaerys Experience.

I'm not sure how to articulate this...but Dany is a conquerer. The people who follow her (mostly) uncritically are either in love with her, or people like Missandie and Grey Worm, who were slaves that she freed. These people are not only subjects, and they do not have any authority of their own. They are followers. That is important. Danaerys collects and surrounds herself with followers. It's also important that almost right after Missandie gives a glowing review of Dany's greatness, we have a scene that is very clearly meant to shake our faith in her.

Or maybe I see this scene this way because I already despise the idea of a Targ Restoration? That's possible. I won't deny that I'm biased. I'll prefer anyone over Targs.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this is something to think about. Would Dany give up her crown for her people? I sincerely doubt it. I mean she prioritises Jon bending the knee over her helping people in the same conversation where she tells Jon he should prioritise helping people over.....not bending the knee. Then she burns food. Mind fucked.

Bless Missandie tho, she really believes what she's saying.

[welcome-to-the-cafe]

SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS (2021)

shang-chi and the legend of the ten rings is an american superhero film directed by destin daniel cretton, starring simu liu, awkwafina, meng'er zhang, fala chen, michelle yeoh, tony leung, and like...a ton of other large-named individuals...

jk this is not a review this is just a loose collection of comments on the movie, which i watched this weekend, in a theater.

actually no spoilers below.

disclaimers:

i have very limited context re: marvel and other superhero franchises

also even though i watched this movie a day ago, i remember basically nothing

comments:

ah yes, yet another evil organization manipulating the world from the shadows

shocked by how romantic that fight scene between xu wenwu and ying li was

i appreciate when a superhero movie has the hero hail from SF or LA or literally anywhere that isn't NYC; west coast represent

also appreciate all the kung-fu movie posters in shaun's place. i love when american movies do shoutouts to asian martial arts movies.

re: "shaun" - ah yes, bland-name anglicization

whenever i saw awkwafina on screen, i kept thinking "oh it's awkwafina" instead of "oh it's katy"

i feel like the character katy was made for this movie, like they wanted to put awkwafina in the movie so they just made up a character for her to play.

absolutely loved that oldboy-homage from-the-side baddie mowdown in the bus

i really love the whole "best friend throws aside everything to help out their friend" trope. i mean. it's kind of bad. but it's heartwarming whenever it happens. (e.g. in vol. 1 of ajin with kaito and kei nagai, in the lord of the rings with samwise gamgee and frodo baggins)

also i like that shang-chi and katy are actually just friends. they are just pals. nothing straight is happening over here.

i did like that scene with katy's family, where people are speaking in both english and chinese. i liked katy's grandma and the whole qingming festival grave gifts thing

i love xu xialing (shang-chi's sister), but... why do badass asian women almost always have bob cuts? i'm having flashbacks to rinko kikuchi as mako mori in pacific rim. brb, looking up "asian women in action movies with bob cuts" ...yes, note also: faye valentine in cowboy bebop, motoko kusanagi in ghost in the shell, and sun bak in sense8

i wish i had more context re: marvel bc i want to know who the asian portal guy is... (he shows up a few times)

that whole scaffolding fight scene - cover your eyes if you're afraid of heights, i guess - i don't think it was a good idea for them to leave the inside of the building for the scaffolding, but, well. it made for a good fight scene.

morris the dijiang/hundun was really cute! usually i associate chinese mythological creatures with words like "majestic," "beautiful," and "terrifying"...but wow! cute!

i'm kind of losing steam here i don't know what else to say

oh yeah, i almost cheered when i saw michelle yeoh on screen. sorry, i love her.

idk how chinese the clothing is. it seems really colorful. does it look like it's from a particular part of china? if someone has like, an article on that, i would be interested.

also i was surprised to not hear any cantonese despite this movie being partially set in macau.

oh i should probably talk about tony leung as wenwu. idk what to say. sensitive and powerful portrayal of a villain as just an old man consumed by grief.

i appreciate that bit where wenwu (who is really old) says to an old white-hared dude, "i've eaten more salt than you've eaten rice." i think that might have been lost in translation.

weird thought: ying li and wenwu have maybe a thousand-year age difference. mayfly-december romance.

if any analyses come out about like, what kung fu styles the martial arts are based on, i would be into that. send them my way. my only uneducated comment is that the fight styles of ta lo seem kind of airbendy. like the way the foot sweeps out in a circle. also the swirling leaves effects.

i'm also curious about xialing's style. with and without the rope dart. oh man, the rope dart...i feel like it was used in super unrealistic ways...but it looks really cool.

i really like how the rings are used in fight scenes. honestly they actually seem pretty...authentic? like there's something genuinely chinese kung-fu about them. like southern chinese maybe?

also liked the hook swords the ten rings mooks use. i don't think i've seen them very much (i think jet from avatar: the last airbender uses them?). they're not used in very cool ways though (the hook-ness of the swords is used a lot less than the sword-ness)

this isn't an asian film, but most of the cast is east asian. i wonder how china feels about this film. like how do chinese people feel about the casting etc.?

the water vfx were very impressive. fun fact: shang-chi had no less than 11 vfx companies involved in its production

also there are mid-credit and post-credit scenes that i thought were worth watching

i feel like this movie could have been better, but also i didn't expect better. i don't really know what to expect from superhero movies in general. i wasn't paying much attention to how good the movie actually was because i was just busy being dazzled by the visual effects and the fight scenes and so on.

bonus xu xialing because i couldn’t resist

and a few other asian action babes with bob cuts for comparison

hey, it’s a thing.

[dweemeister]

NOTE: This is the first (and perhaps only) film released theatrically during the COVID-19 pandemic that I am reviewing – I saw Wolfwalkers at the Vineland Drive-in at the City of Industry, California. Because moviegoing carries risks at this time, please remember to follow health and safety guidelines as outlined by your local, regional, and national health officials.

Wolfwalkers (2020)

In interviews prior to and after Wolfwalkers’ release, co-director Tomm Moore has described the film as the last panel of Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych. That triptych (an informal trilogy) began with The Secret of Kells (2009) and continued with its centerpiece, Song of the Sea (2014). The global environment for animated cinema has transformed since Kells, and now – unexpectedly – Cartoon Saloon finds itself a hub for not just hand-drawn animation, but animation that rejects the crass commercialism emerging from mainstream animation studios (mostly from the United States). With the triptych completed (as well as 2017’s The Breadwinner), one can trace Cartoon Saloon’s evolution from their beginning to its present artistic maturation. While the film asserts its own uniqueness in the Cartoon Saloon filmography, there are connecting strands – aesthetic, spiritual, thematic – of the studio’s previous features apparent throughout. Upon a week’s reflection, I think Wolfwalkers is the studio’s second-best film, just behind Song of the Sea. Even at second-best, this level of artistry has rarely been seen in this young century.

It is 1650 in Kilkenny. Robyn Goodfellowe (Honor Kneafsey) is an apprentice hunter and only daughter of Bill (Sean Bean). Robyn and her father are expatriates from England, and some of their Irish neighbors will not let them forget that. Oliver Cromwell (Simon McBurney) – referred to as “The Lord Protector” throughout the film – has invaded Ireland and looks to secure his conquest over the Irish people (Cromwell is a despised figure in Ireland and lionized by some in England to this day). On an ill-advised trip outside the walls of Kilkenny, Robyn encounters and eventually befriends Mebh Óg MacTíre (Eva Whittaker in her first film role; pronounced “MABE”), a Wolfwalker. As a Wolfwalker, the animalistic Mebh can leave her physical body and take the shape of a wolf while slumbering. Mebh’s mother – who is also a Wolfwalker – has been missing for sometime while Cromwell has ordered the slaughter of all of Ireland’s wolves. Things are complicated when Bill is tasked by the Lord Protector to destroy the wolves living in the woods surrounding Kilkenny.

From the opening moments, lead background artist Ludovic Gavillet (2016’s The Secret Life of Pets, 2018’s The Grinch) sets the contrast between the scenes within and outside Kilkenny’s walls. Kilkenny is suffocatingly geometric, with squares and rectangles dominating the background and foreground. Backbreaking work defines life in Kilkenny, all devoted to the residents’ English conquerors, God, and the Lord Protector. Rarely does the average city resident venture outside the looming outer medieval walls (there are two sets of walls in the city). The structure of Kilkenny is inconceivably box-shaped when seen from a distance. It appears like a linocut. In that distance are the countryside and the forests. As one ventures further from Cromwell’s castle, expressionist swirls define the foliage that seems to enclose the living figures treading through. Green, brown, and black figures twist impossibly in this lush environment. Seemingly half-drawn or faded figures suggest a depthless, dense forest – similar in function to, but nevertheless distinct from, Tyrus Wong’s background art for Bambi (1942). In both Kilkenny and the forest scenes, selective uses of of CGI animation capture the dynamism of certain action scenes – two running scenes in particular employ these techniques (once in joy, the other in terror).

So often in modern CGI-animated films, the animators seem to grasp for heightened realism and minutiae. In such movies, too many details are packed into frames that can only be appreciated if prodigiously rewatched or paused mid-movie. It might feel like completing a visual checklist. In Wolfwalkers, the half-finished details amid breathtaking backgrounds, angular (or round) humans, and simultaneously threatening and delightful wolves almost seem to announce that, yes, humans drew this – and they did so with such artistic flare. In keeping with the references to triptychs in this review, the film itself sometimes divides the frame into thirds (a top, middle, and bottom or a left, center, and right) or halves in moments of dramatic weight. The thirds or halves are separated by dividing lines and are used for various purposes depending on the moment: to save the filmmakers from making two extra cuts, juxtapose differing if not contradicting perspectives, and intensify the emotions portrayed. Less utilized in this film but even more radical than the aforementioned techniques is the film’s use of shifting aspect ratios. Wolfwalkers is principally in 1.85:1 (the common American widescreen cinematic standard, which is slightly wider than the 16:9 widescreen TV standard), but there are notable moments which temporarily dispense of these standards. Like the division of the screen into thirds or halves, the shifts in screen aspect ratio help the audience focus and understand what is occurring on-screen. The most memorable screen aspect ratio shift appears before an eruption of violence.

The Secret of Kells, too, was set in a city designed in a perfect, orderly shape. That film, like Wolfwalkers, evokes Christianity for narrative purposes. But where Kells celebrated God and found religion as a source of comfort, Wolfwalkers’ depiction of Christianity – specifically, Cromwell’s Anglican zealotry – is without redeeming elements. Under his breath, the Lord Protector prays to God that he will execute any providential commands by any means necessary. In public, he announces his actions as essential to rid Ireland of the lupine paganism that inhabits the wild. Without saying as much, Cromwell’s orders are nevertheless Anglican England imposing its will on Irish Catholics. Irish cinema, until the late 1990s and early 2000s, was usually deferential in its depictions of the clergy and religious practitioners (almost always Catholic). Though it is not unheard of for an Irish film to be critical in portrayals of religious belief, it remains uncommon. And though Cromwell is Anglican and not Catholic (and despite the fact he remains vilified in Ireland), Wolfwalkers’ cynical depiction in how he wields his religiosity as a cudgel is an extraordinary development in Irish cinema.

Tied to the film’s depiction of religiosity are its undercurrents of English colonialism and environmentalism. The latter will be obvious to viewers, but the former might cause confusion during a first viewing because it seems to be, at once, on the periphery and yet central to Wolfwalkers. Cromwell being referred to as “the Lord Protector” for the film’s entirety is indicative of screenwriter Will Collins’ (Song of the Sea) decision not to provide much historical context within the film. English colonial oppression usually occurs off-screen or is implied. This seems inconsistent with Cartoon Saloon’s work on The Breadwinner. That film identifies and openly describes Taliban injustices.

So what gives? As much as those who admire animated film disdain perceptions that it is solely for children (like myself), animated film is oftentimes a gateway for children to be exposed, eventually, to other corners of cinema. Can children understand Anglican-Catholic tensions in Cromwellian Ireland? Perhaps (especially British and Irish children), if presented with enough care. But the answer probably lies with the fact that the thematic goals of Wolfwalkers are more aligned with Kells and Song of the Sea than The Breadwinner. Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych is concerned with how the Irish are inextricably, spiritually, bonded to the environment. There is a balance between humanity and nature – a mystical connection that, when disrupted, brings harm to all. The Breadwinner, though very much a part of Cartoon Saloon’s filmography, is grounded in recent history and, because of recent developments in the Taliban’s favor concerning the Afghan peace process, present-day concerns. In the film, fantastical stories are used to bring Parvana’s family together as the Taliban tighten their grip before the American invasion. This has little bearing on the folklore-centric storytelling of Wolfwalkers, but Collins, Moore, and Stewart’s editorial decision to downplay the film’s historical basis tempers any messaging they wished to convey.

Wolfwalkers meets The Breadwinner in its depiction of a young girl growing up in a male-dominated society. This film’s lead was supposed to be a young boy. But the story, to Collins, Moore, and Stewart, just did not click with the original male protagonist. As such, the trio made the decision early in the film’s production to switch the protagonist’s gender. Robyn, an English transplant to Ireland, is allowed remarkable freedom to do whatever she wants with her time in the opening stages of the film. This arrangement cannot persist as her father falls from the Lord Protector’s good graces. She is relegated to washing dishes from daybreak to dusk in the scullery – a task that she, in her heart, rejects for its gendered connotations. Robyn wears a Puritan’s frock while at the scullery, a uniform she has no desire for. While outdoors beyond the Kilkenny walls, she wears what her father wears – pants! – while out hunting wolves. Other than her father, few in the city care for Robyn’s intelligence and instincts. Most everybody ignores her protestations and truth-telling about the things she has seen in the forest. By film’s end, she is vindicated, in spite of Cromwell’s (and, to a lesser extent, her father’s) bluster and bravado.

This film also contains potentially queer subtext between Robyn and Mebh. Writers more skilled than I will provide better analysis of that subtext. Nothing explicit is shown, as the two are still children. Yet the nature of their friendship, the themes contained in Wolfwalkers, and some unspoken moments between Robyn and Mebh seem to relate a possible queerness. The film also does nothing to present either girl as heterosexual. Queer or not, Wolfwalkers shows the viewer a blossoming friendship between two girls – not without its tribulations, but rooted in their common earnestness.

Unlike previous films in Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych, there are no notable original songs in Wolfwalkers. French composer Bruno Coulais and Irish folk music group Kíla are Cartoon Saloon regulars and return for Wolfwalkers. The musical ideas for Wolfwalkers’ score are not as apparent as the previous films in the triptych, as they are not quoting a song composed for the film. But the use of Irish instruments in their collaboration lends at atmospheric authenticity that only heaps upon the film’s sterling animation. Norwegian pop sensation AURORA has altered the lyrics and orchestration to her 2015 single “Running with the Wolves” to accompany a running scene that, by the filmmakers’ admission, was inspired by the running scene from The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (2013, Japan). The scene pales in comparison to the context and music from the late Isao Takahata’s final film, but Wolfwalkers is a movie more than the sum of its parts.

Production on Wolfwalkers was in its final stages as the COVID-19 pandemic reached the Republic of Ireland. When the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, announced a countrywide lockdown on March 12, 2020, Cartoon Saloon had already started preparing for a lockdown contingency three weeks’ prior. Clean-up was divided between Luxembourg-based Mélusine Productions and Cartoon Saloon’s headquarters in Kilkenny. After assessing the needs of the clean-up animators, both studios moved to remote work where the most pressing complication was their Internet bandwidth slowing down upload speeds.

Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore triptych is finished. In the last eleven years, the studio has proven itself one of the most interesting and important animation studios currently working. They have even proven they can make quality films without its primary director, as evidenced by Nora Twomey’s The Breadwinner (Twomey’s next project for Cartoon Saloon is My Father’s Dragon, slated for a 2021 release). Though just an indie studio with limited resources, their standing in animated cinema has only strengthened with this, their most ambitious film to date. It might seem like a rehash of the animation from Kells, but Wolfwalkers has improved upon its predecessor, and boasts perhaps the most beautiful artwork of any animated movie released this year. The film’s grandeur belongs on a movie screen, but, understandably, very few will have the opportunity to experience it in such an environment. This latest, ageless triumph will outlast these extraordinary times.

My rating: 8.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

[hello-robin-goodfellow]

SHAKESPEARE AND THE PRETTY SPEECHES OF A KING

@ardenrosegarden @amalthea9 @lioness--hart @princesssarisa @hmmm-what-am-i-doing @suits-of-woe @malvoliowithin @noshitshakespeare

I was once watching Brows Held High review of Laurence Olivier’s Henry V (1944), where the reviewer, Kyle Kalgreen, analized how it faired in the context of British World War II Propaganda Machine,  as a Shakespeare film adaptation and in comparison to the Kenneth Branagh 1989 Film Adaptation. 

There is a moment he pauses to analyze the most popular speech of the play, wich is the Saint Crispin’s Day Speech:

What’s he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? 

No, my fair cousin.

If we are marked to die, we are enough

To do our country loss; and if to live,

The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

God’s will, I pray thee wish not one man more.

By Jove, I am not covetous for gold

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;

It yearns me not if men my garments wear;

Such outward things dwell not in my desires.

But if it be a sin to covet honor,

I am the most offending soul alive.

No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.

God’s peace, I would not lose so great an honor

As one man more, methinks, would share from me,

For the best hope I have. 

Oh, do not wish one more!

Rather proclaim it, 

Westmoreland, through my host,

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart. 

His passport shall be made,

And crowns for convoy put into his purse.

We would not die in that man’s company

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is called the feast of Crispian.

He that outlives this day and comes safe home,

Will stand o' tiptoe when the day is named

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall see this day, and live old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors

And say, “Tomorrow is Saint Crispian.”

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,

And say, “These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.” 

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot

But he’ll remember with advantages

What feats he did that day. 

Then shall our names,

Familiar in his mouth as household words, 

Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,Warwick and Talbot, 

Salisbury and Gloucester,

Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.

This story shall the good man teach his son,

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be rememberèd—

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now abed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

(William Shakespeare. Henry V: Act IV, Scene III)

Beautifull. Powerfull. Lie.

Because, as Kyle Kalgreen apoints, while the Laurence Olivier had to cut it to make Henry V more simpathetic, the original Shakespeare text and the Kenneth Branagh Film Adaptation have this scene following the Saint Crispin’s day speech, where the young king reads a list of the english man who died in battle: 

Edward the duke of York, the earl of Suffolk,

Sir Richard Ketly, Davy Gam, esquire;

None else of name, and of all other men

But five and twenty. O God, thy arm was here,

And not to us but to thy arm alone

Ascribe we all! When, without stratagem,

But in plain shock and even play of battle,

Was ever known so great and little loss

On one part and on th' other? 

Take it, God,For it is none but thine. 

(William Shakespeare, Henry V: Act IV, Scene VIII)

The death nobleman are named, while the death common soldier is just ‘None else of name’. The death nobleman is ‘so great loss’. The death common soldier is ‘so little loss’. Contrary to what King Henry V promissed, not everybody who died fighting on his name in France will be considered his brother, remembered and mourned by him.

And them later, we watch the consequences of the reign of his son in the Henry VI trilogy of plays, and in Henry VI Part III, our new protagonist gives this beautifull speech about the blessing of a commoner’s life while sitting over a molehill:

This battle fares like to the morning’s war, 

When dying clouds contend with growing light, 

What time the shepherd, blowing of his nails, 

Can neither call it perfect day nor night. 

Now sways it this way, like a mighty sea 

Forced by the tide to combat with the wind; 

Now sways it that way, like the selfsame sea 

Forced to retire by fury of the wind: 

Sometime the flood prevails, and then the wind; 

Now one the better, then another best; 

Both tugging to be victors, breast to breast, 

Yet neither conqueror nor conquered: 

So is the equal of this fell war. 

Here on this molehill will I sit me down. 

To whom God will, there be the victory! 

For Margaret my queen, and Clifford too, 

Have chid me from the battle; swearing both 

They prosper best of all when I am thence. 

Would I were dead! if God’s good will were so; 

For what is in this world but grief and woe? 

O God! methinks it were a happy life, 

To be no better than a homely swain; 

To sit upon a hill, as I do now, 

To carve out dials quaintly, point by point, 

Thereby to see the minutes how they run, 

How many make the hour full complete; 

How many hours bring about the day; 

How many days will finish up the year; 

How many years a mortal man may live. 

When this is known, then to divide the times: 

So many hours must I tend my flock; 

So many hours must I take my rest; 

So many hours must I contemplate; 

So many hours must I sport myself; 

So many days my ewes have been with young; 

So many weeks ere the poor fools will ean: 

So many years ere I shall shear the fleece: 

So minutes, hours, days, months, and years, 

Pass’d over to the end they were created, 

Would bring white hairs unto a quiet grave. 

Ah, what a life were this! how sweet! how lovely! 

Gives not the hawthorn-bush a sweeter shade 

To shepherds looking on their silly sheep, 

Than doth a rich embroider’d canopy 

To kings that fear their subjects’ treachery? 

O, yes, it doth; a thousand-fold it doth. 

And to conclude, the shepherd’s homely curds, 

His cold thin drink out of his leather bottle. 

His wonted sleep under a fresh tree’s shade, 

All which secure and sweetly he enjoys, 

Is far beyond a prince’s delicates, 

His viands sparkling in a golden cup, 

His body couched in a curious bed, 

When care, mistrust, and treason waits on him.

(William Shakespeare. Henry VI Part III: Act II, Scene V)

Also a beautifull and powerfull speech, if a bit revealing of a romanticized view of the poverty that Henry VI never lived. And also a lie, or, at least, a half truth for Henry VI himself.

By contrast to the Molehill Speech, here is the dialogue exchange between him and two keepers, in the next act:

Second Keeper

Say, what art thou that talk'st of kings and queens?

Henry VI

More than I seem, and less than I was born to: A man at least, for less I should not be; And men may talk of kings, and why not I?

Second Keeper

Ay, but thou talk'st as if thou wert a king.

Henry VI

Why, so I am, in mind; and that's enough.

Second Keeper   

But, if thou be a king, where is thy crown?

Henry VI

My crown is in my heart, not on my head; Not decked with diamonds and Indian stones, Nor to be seen: my crown is called content: A crown it is that seldom kings enjoy.

Second Keeper

Well, if you be a king crown'd with content, Your crown content and you must be contented To go along with us; for as we think, You are the king King Edward hath deposed; And we his subjects sworn in all allegiance Will apprehend you as his enemy. 

Henry VI

But did you never swear, and break an oath?

Second Keeper

No, never such an oath; nor will not now.

Henry VI

Where did you dwell when I was King of England?

Second Keeper

Here in this country, where we now remain.

Henry VI

I was anointed king at nine months old; My father and my grandfather were kings, And you were sworn true subjects unto me: And tell me, then, have you not broke your oaths?

First Keeper. 

No; For we were subjects but while you were king.

Henry VI

Why, am I dead? do I not breathe a man Ah, simple men, you know not what you swear! Look, as I blow this feather from my face, And as the air blows it to me again, Obeying with my wind when I do blow, And yielding to another when it blows, Commanded always by the greater gust; Such is the lightness of you common men.

(William Shakespeare. Henry VI Part III: Act III, Scene I)

We can perceive here a condescending tone that King Henry VI has when he talks with two members of the people. He is surprised to see that they don’t believe in a divine right that gives him a “natural kingly aura”. They don’t see him as a superior, wise and benevolent saviour, but only as a man who once weared a crown, but now, without the crown, they don’t have any obligation to obey him. 

And Henry VI can’t accept that.

Later, he is rescued by Clifford, Warwick and Clarence from imprisoment under King Edward IV’s rule. And when those three man offer him back the crown and title of king, he don’t refuse it to live the simple commoner life he described as more beautifull in the Molehill Speech. He accepts it. Even if he intends to let the actual work of ruling to Warwick, Clarence and Queen Margaret, he still wants the sense of superiority, the privileges and the confortable life offered by the title of king that he grew accustomed to since he was nine months old.

By justaposing those speeches and scenes, Shakespeare pulls us of the rug in our view of those two characters, who want the people to believe they are good, heroic and chivalrous kings, anointed by God himself, when in reality what anoints them is their money and their armies.

Intentionally or not, with those plays, Shakespeare was at the same being a precursor and subvertor of the Relatable Royal Trope, showing that those people with the title of kings are like us... but not really.

They feel sadness, fear, anger, love, envy and jealousie like us, but they are more rich, powerfull and privileged then us.And they don’t really  want to renounce that power, because it will take away their sense of being superior to us.

To paraphrase Kyle Kalgreen: 

Beware pretty speeches

(Kyle Kalgreen. Brows Held High: This Day is Called the Feast of Crispian, a review of Laurence Olivier’s Henry V. October 26th, 2018)

Specially if they come from a person that wears the crown of a king.

[bopinion]

Book of the month / 2021 / 08 August

I love books. Even though I hardly read any. Because my library is more like a collection of tomes, coffee-table books, limited editions... in short: books in which not "only" the content counts, but also the editorial performance, the presentation, the curating of the topic - the book as a total work of art itself.

Through a different Lens

Stanley Kubrick (& Sean Corcoran, Donald Albrecht, Luc Sante)

Photography / 1997 / Taschen Publishing House

Every now and then, I sentence the kids to watch movies that I think are relevant - whether from a personal or a cinematic point of view. While my little son tends to be served light fare like "Blues Brothers," my big daughter sometimes has to chew a little harder, as happened the other day with "2001: A Space Odyssey." Her enthusiasm was a bit restrained, even if I exclaimed about 23 times, "That movie is from 1968. There were no special effects then, it's all actually built!".

Even regardless of that aspect, this epic can be considered groundbreaking. From the genre reference of the classical music background and the excellent script, to the technological authenticity and the almost psychedelic color scheme, to the revolutionary camera work. Above all, the visual composition of this film is the true mastery of director Stanley Kubrick, who is not considered one of the most important filmmakers of all time for nothing. Of course, I also have the matching book in my library ("The Making of Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'", also from Taschen, of course), but this time it's about another work of this visually powerful creator: his early work, photography.

"In the Streets of New York" is the title of the publisher's documentary "Through a different Lens" on the occasion of an exhibition of the same name at the Museum of the City of New York. For it was there that Kubrick, just 17 years old, went on his first stalk of optical impressions. In 1945, he signed on as a photographer for the magazine "Look," for which he photographed stories with a human touch in the streets, clubs and sports arenas of New York City for five years. In the process, he captured with his camera just about everything that made up life in the Big Apple in that era: People in the laundromat, the hustle and bustle at Columbia University, sports stars, showgirls in their dressing rooms, performers in the circus, Broadway actresses rehearsing their lines, cab drivers changing a tire, couples kissing on the train platform, shoe shine boys, boxers reconsidering their career choice in the ring corner, patients in their dentist's waiting room, prominent businessmen, politicians, children in the amusement park, and commuters on the Subway.

Even these photographs from Kubrick's younger years reveal a startling sense of composition, tension, and atmosphere, and seem like film stills to never-shot dramas from the jungles of the big city. "This exhibition reveals how (Kubricks) formative years laid the groundwork for his compelling storytelling and dark visual style. They also show a noir side of New York that's no longer around." (Vanity Fair) "Photography, and particularly his years with Look magazine, laid the technical and aesthetic foundations for a way of seeing the world and honed his ability to get it down on film. There, he mastered the skill of framing, composition and lighting to create compelling images," explains Sean Corcoran, curator of the exhibition "Through a different Lens" and co-author of the book. Apparently, it was clear to the young man from the very beginning where his talent lay and how he was able to hone and master it.

Stanley Kubrick was born in New York City on July 26, 1928, as the first of two children. His parents came from Jewish families, and all of his grandparents had immigrated from Austro-Hungarian Galicia. His early passions were excessive reading, cinema and chess. He was first gifted a camera, a Graflex, from his father when he was 13 years old. And he immediately took off as a photographer for the William Howard Taft High School student newspaper. After graduation, he turned his hobby into a career and at the age of 18 became a full-time photographer for Look, to which he had previously sold amateur photos. As early as 1950, Kubrick directed his first documentary, "Day of the Fight", about life in and around the boxing ring, which he had already explored photographically. Although only 16 minutes long, the film was already considered a sensational study at the time. His future career path was set, the rest is history.

"Through a Different Lens" was an extremely successful exhibition, which subsequently also went on tour. Not only Kubrick fans were impressed by the mastery of optical staging that was already visible at an early stage. Corcoran: "Kubrick learned through the camera's lens to be an acute observer of human interactions and to tell stories through images in dynamic narrative sequences. (His) ability to see and translate an individual's complex psychological life into visual form was apparent in his many personality profiles for the publication. His experiences at the magazine (Look) also offered him opportunities to explore a range of artistic expressions. Overall, Kubrick's still photography demonstrates his versatility as an image maker. Look's editors often promoted the straightforward approach of contemporary photojournalism at which Kubrick excelled. It's clear he always got the photographs that were needed for the assignment, but that he was also unafraid to make pictures that excited his own aesthetic sensibility."

Beyond the 100 photographs in the exhibition, the book presents 300 of Kubrick's images, including unpublished shots and outtakes. Annotated by Corcoran, his colleague Donald Albrecht, and renowned writer and critic Luc Sante, who has published most notably in Interview and Harper's. They place the motifs in their context, refer to stylistic aspects, and thus point to Kubrick's (imminent) artistic career. Above all, in contrast to the exhibition, the book offers all friends of photography - whether fans of Kubrick or not - a rare insight into the proverbial pioneering early work of a brilliant artist. And into one of the most interesting eras of the "city that never sleeps" - yes, even Frank Sinatra was photographed by young Kubrick.

From the extensive, mostly euphoric reviews of the book "Through a different Lens" or the oeuvre documented in it, let's take one example each from a professional and an amateur:

"The man who later led a genre to its lonely high point and at the same time to its final point with each of his films knew already at the age of barely 17, that's how old he was at the time, that expression and form shape every impression." (Die Welt)

"I can't praise this book enough. Wonderful collection and very informative. An absolute must for those wishing to understand more of how Kubrick valued the frame." (Yvi on amazon.com)

P.S.: Just for the sake of completeness, let's mention Kubrick's cinematic output after his breakthrough: 1960: Spartacus / 1962: Lolita / 1964: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb / 1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey / 1971: A Clockwork Orange / 1975: Barry Lyndon / 1980: The Shining / 1987: Full Metal Jacket / 1999: Eyes Wide Shut. No, this is not a selection of greatest hits, this is a complete listing. And thus the proof that he has indeed realized a significant peak in the respective genre. His great influence on the history of cinema is also shown by the fact that he is the only director to appear a total of five times in the list of the 100 films with the best critics' ratings.

In addition, two side notes: Kubrick spent several years preparing a film biopic about Napoleon Bonaparte. The preparations were so far along that he could have started production at any time. However, the release of "Waterloo" (1970) and its poor financial results dissuaded him and the film studio from the project. The project has since been known as "The greatest Movie never made". He also dealt intensively with the subject of the Holocaust. After the release of "Schindler's List" (1993), however, he discarded these plans explaining that Steven Spielberg had already told all the essential.

Stanley Kubrick died of a heart attack on March 7, 1999, in his home at Childwickbury Manor near London, where he had lived in seclusion since the 1960s and had set up studio and editing rooms in the former stables.

Here's a short trailer for the exhibition "Trough a different Lens":

https://youtu.be/EgPlnjeBs7E

[albertserra]

Hello I really like your gay subtext film recs and I just saw your westerns one - I have to warn you though - don't watch calamity jane 1953! like yes it DOES have very strong gay subtext with butch doris day and another femme woman but the doris day character is also a vicious murderer taking part in genocide of Indigenous people. It's an absolutely disgusting movie & I wish ppl didn't promote it as gay rep! I actually watched it after a tumblr rec years ago and it's awful how ppl lie about it

Jesus...

In this context this review is genuinely the most braindead fucking thing I have ever seen

Thanks for warning me lol def taking this off my watchlist. “Cottagecore” is like one of the worst trends perpetuated by white gays in a long time like literally romanticizing colonialism yaaas

[harrysdimples]

folklore track by track review

the 1: love me a piano intro. oh this guitar?? swearing in the first 5 seconds? I like these lyrics. never bleed????????? hmm.................it would’ve been you.............I..............it would’ve been fun if you were the one.........bruv..........dare I say it...............am I just clowning.....or like.......................is she....ya know.......talking about........you know.......h****?? oh these vocals ! bruv I don’t care this is about harry because I say so afhdjssa. I really love this production and her vocals, it already sounds so much more mature than lover and it’s only the opener, feels like a more-mature version of a deep cut on red. excellent start!

cardigan: oh this percussion?? the piano?? her voice sounds fab. is this about the met? black lipstick? or bleachella? her VOCALS bruv sound 10x better than anything on lover?? I love these lyrics omg. THIS IS SO GOOD. HEARTBEAT ON THE HIGH LINE ONCE IN TWENTY LIFETIMES. this so good?? try to change the ending peter losing wendy?? leaving like a father running like water????? I love this so much omg. the atmospheric vocal...the percussion....the lyrics.....the piano......LAV IT. I can’t get over how already this is more lyrically dense than lover and reputation but I ain’t complaining!! I’m both surprised and not surprised that they went with this for the single from this era but I really like it, it feels like it would fit right at home in the NFR tracklist.

the last great american dynasty: love these strings?? omg the beat? is this political? hmm I like the lyrics of the verses but i’m not 100% feeling the lyrics/structure of the chorus, feels a little like she’s trying to fit too many words into the line, but I love the storytelling aspect of it and it’ll probably grow on me. it’s like a grown-up version of starlight or the lucky one. Is this supposed to be like an alternate version of what taylor’s life could’ve been like? or am I just completely misinterpreting that lmao?

exile ft. bon iver: like this piano intro. love bon iver. oh the birds in the background?? ooft these lyrics....brutal. is this about calvin? is that a kazoo? afjdshjsa I promise i’m not trying to be like this but like......this is very......hm. I really love his voice. the bridge is really pretty with both their voices. I can see myself staring dramatically outside the window listening to this when we’re allowed to properly go back outside lmao. very nice and pretty, it’ll probably hit harder later on than my first listen but I like it. 

my tears ricochet: this a-cappella intro? oh this is sad :( what a ghostly scene....................................I didn’t have it in myself to go with grace :( oh this buildup?? I still talk to you........omg these atmospheric vocals I. LOVE. I need to read the lyrics on my next few listens to this but I really like it so far.

mirrorball: this feels like the outro in a coming of age 80s movie. love the soft guitars. oh these vocals! I know she didn’t mean to but when she signs tallest it sounds like she’s saying toilet to me lmao. jack’s atmospheric vocals!!! yes!!! the bridge is really beautiful. all I do is try, try, try. I’m just trying to get you to look at me :( I do have to say, while I love how lyrically dense this album is and reflective it is in comparison to her last few albums, the instrumentation doesn’t change a whole lot throughout these songs on first listen, it’s more that atmospheric vocals/sounds are built on top of it, which is fine, but I think they’ll benefit a lot from me listening to them outside the context of the album. love the meaning behind this though and I think it’s really beautiful.

seven: (this is when I stopped doing live reactions and instead went for post track reactions) Is it weird to say that this did better at the “love letter to love” concept meant for lover than lover did? this song feels more like for her legacy/future family and how she’s grown than as an active, present moment which is nice. I will say while I did love NFR when it came out, it also hit a wall with me eventually where it needed some breathing space or something to break up the sections of the album (which harry does actually quite well) and I feel like we’re hitting that point (if we haven’t already). I’m always slightly apprehensive about long albums like this which is why I said this will benefit from listening outside the context of the album. 

august: I’m really curious as to who this is about lmao. but this was excellent in the progression of the track and the buildup/atmosphere and dynamics of the track, this was what I was wanting a bit more with songs like exile and it did great at building a different sonic landscape which is what was needed in the album imo. one of my favourite tracks so far.

this is me trying: this is very...wistful and reflective. a hybrid of the archer and I wish you would to me. “I was so ahead of the curve, the curve became a sphere, Fell behind all my classmates and I ended up here” is a LYRIC bruv. feels reminiscent of what she said in the miss americana documentary about how you’re stunted in your growth when you become famous at a young age and you fall behind the emotional development of most people around you, which is really interesting. “Pouring out my heart to a stranger, But I didn't pour the whiskey” is that supposed to be like a metaphor for stopping herself from saying too much all the time because she knows it could get out/be perceived in a certain way? either way, these are some great lyrics. “you're a flashback in a film reel on the one screen in my town” hmmm.....

illicit affairs: I LOVE THIS. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS. I have nothing else to add. this is fantastic. favourite track so far. amazing. 10/10.

invisible string: this song is really sweet lol I wish I was in love with someone to relate more to this. very referential to her work as a whole and I liked the more stripped down production.

man this is a long album lol

mad woman: FUCK YOU FOREVER. scream. this is very lana-fied lmao. I wish she did a little more with the electric guitar in the back though, imagine this more being soft-rock? so this is definitely about scott and scooter right? I do like this but it does feel very sonically similar to some of the tracks we’ve heard so far and I wish she had switched it up a little to fit the excellent lyricism of this song, more guitar would’ve really elevated the song imo. 

epiphany: lol I got a bit emotional listening to this, I can already tell i’m going to listen to this at night and cry lmao. I have a massive fear of death/the unknown and this song sort of touched on that concept to me and I really liked the production. this feels like it should be in a movie soundtrack or in like, grey’s anatomy. the heartbeat-like sound in the outro? beautiful. this is the sort of concepts I’ve been wanting from taylor for a while now and the execution of this was really good imo. 

betty: ms swift it’s okay to be gay. the elaborate-ness of putting yourself in the position of a man just to say you liked a girl. how are the kaylors/gaylors holding out lmao this is a nice story (like an upgraded version of ybwm) but I can’t get over how effectively no-homo this is lmao. the key change? love story wishes. oh the wistfullness to be young......and in looooOOOOoooOOove.

peace: love the guitar in the intro. this gives me another more grown up perspective of a song on melodrama? I love her vocals in this. I feel like i’ve said this about 40 times already but the atmospheric sounds....chef’s kiss. 

hoax: the closer. the LYRICISM bitch. “your faithless love's the only hoax I believe in” shut up :( the bridge is gorgeous. I’m not sure how I feel about it as the closer though, it ties up the themes of the album pretty well but I almost feel peace would’ve been a better closer? still really gorgeous though.

okay. overall thoughts. top 3 albums of taylor’s discography for me along with 1989 and red. It did feel long towards the end though and I still think her problem is editing and streamlining her projects which is why I think 1989 (as her best album for that) and red (while being longer than this has enough songs to break up the album so it’s not monotonous for the listener) rank above this for me at the moment, but that could change. If I were her, I would’ve taken out invisible string and possibly betty and seven to have as deluxe tracks. her lyricism is better on this album than both reputation and lover combined, she really did that in like 4 months. I will need more time with it as I always do with taylor’s projects but it was the album she needed in my opinion. I think part of the reason I disliked lover and to a lesser extent, reputation, was because they didn’t come across as if she needed to write them like her other projects, but more projects she felt she should to write because that was where the narrative of her public image was forcing her to go, this feels like a return to form, even if I would tweak a few things. the visuals for this album have all been great (her best album cover after 1989 imo) and I think it benefitted a lot from going into it with next to no expectations, without a single or anything and I hope she continues to just do whatever, rather than painstakingly plan marketing surrounding an album and just allow her talent to speak for itself. really good. favourite tracks are probably: illicit affairs, the 1, cardigan, epiphany and mirrorball. least favourite are probably: invisible string, seven and maybe betty too. i’d rate it about 8/10 at the moment. also: ****** never dies.

[akria23]

I won’t do a full review of the show today - I’ll wait until after the Special and post it along with my Complete Analysis for LeoFiat. (Speaking of - apparently the special’s trailer releases on Oct 29th per MeMindy official Twitter. And the Special releases on Nov 6 [at least this is the date from the guide I’ve been seeing I haven’t seen it posted on MeMindy’s page yet but I could’ve missed it]. So we’re not done yet 😘

Anyway, the episode….

To be frank I was disappointed. I won’t say it was writing per say but production for this episode was very much a mess. The camera work was…questionable. It’s like they ran out of story and so to meet run time they lingered on shots for absolutely no reason. And then the set up for the s€x scene really or ratted me because it was the last s€x scene of the season so I def had expectations. The repeated banging of the painting…and I swear that thing moved or switched sides 😒. But the camera work here wasn’t working for me either.

😌 Fiat was carrying in that red suit tho…

So my issues with writing. When Fiat said he didn’t know who Leo would choose I tell “Lord make it make sense 🙃” Leo who cannot separate love and sex, Leo who had NEVER looked at anyone other than Fiat…we’re supposed to believe that Fiat just found a deep well of insecurity for the same girl he’s been reminding that she wish she was him all season?! Mame make it make sense babe 😪 Now I know I should consider the context of the show, that Fiat is having insecurities because of Leo’s outburst but it’s just not believable even in the set up of that context. Now if he had just left it at I didn’t know if you would choose to follow me…instead of making it sound like there was an actual choice to be made between him and Punn…then yes I would’ve been on board but instead I was punching air cause it was perfect until then.

My other issue with the writing itself was the dialogue about possessiveness - let me make this clear I have never been or will never be one of those ppl who fight for censorship in art. You will never see me say - This show/series/film/book is good because it has a ‘healthy’ relationship. Great writing can embrace all types of tropes - be it ‘toxic’ or ‘healthy’ and I’m more concerned with good writing than so called healthy storylines. I don’t need art t think for me. I believe in pushing critical thinking rather than the concept that art creates bad ppl - bad ppl engage with art, not the other way around. This is my opinion and I’m stating it so there is no confusion to what I’m about to say next - Mame should not have included this specific dialogue. Not because it was toxic - like I said I don’t care about that, in fact I enjoy possessive pairings/tropes when it comes to stories as they can be quite interesting dynamics and can make for a tension filled read. I’d even say a huge part of the reason I like Leo and fiat is because that concept always played in the subtext or casually within the text it self - I speak about this in my analysis of the two but the whole aspect of Fiat sleeping around to spite Leo is literally speaking to this concept. The reason it’s spite, the reason it’s supposed to get a reaction, the reason he later reproached Leo about this is because he was giving away what was Leo’s & Leo was showing that he cared or was affected. This made him angry and in TharnType2 we constantly see him throwing out taunts & challenges over it. The minute she added this dialogue in I could help but sigh because I feel like she could’ve gotten away with it but the moment that dialogue slipped I knew people were gonna be upset. The same people who had been calling the show healthy despite this concept of ownership already being branded in the text itself. Leo telling Fiat that he’s always been ‘his’. Fiat telling Leo that he could do anything he pleases to his body. This isn’t just sexy talk. This is Fiat once again dialing into the concept that his body, his entire being, belongs to Leo and therefore he gives Leo the right to any & everything he wants to it.

The reason I didn’t like the scene with the talk about Leo’s possessiveness is because they’d already cast a bad light on the mom for overt possessiveness and then here we have Leo saying that he’s a monster and he wants to lock Fiat away, they make a literal comparison between Leo & Fiats mom and they never contextualize it. Even though Fiat says you’ll never hurt me they didn’t really delve into that and they should have because viewers these days are not critical thinkers. They want the text to tell them exactly how to think and how to feel and they pick out one clump of dialogue or action and they state this is toxicity without contextualizing it by taking a look at the overall story. Is Leo possessive? Yes. Does that automatically mean something bad? No. Does that automatically make him like Fiats mom? No. Fiats mom was selfish in her possessiveness, she was abusive in it - physically and mentally. Leo has never once been abusive to Fiat, even asked for permission to be rough in sex play, even when jealous or angry he never actually seeks to lock away or harm Fiat. Most importantly Leo NEVER uses his sense of possessive to isolate Fiat from those he loves and those who loves him. He encourages Fiat to mend his relationships (his Dad, his step mom, and his sister, he I he even went with him to his Mom & pet Fiat guide the engagement despite her trying to separate him & Leo and despite knowing she always would he still agreed to Fiats right to come alone for following visits and trust him to not let her affect their relationship). He encourages Fiat to really see and appreciate how much others around him truly love him (for example his entire concept for his birthday surprise for Fiat was showing him not only how much he loved and appreciated him but how much all their family and friends did as well). However the moment people feel like they have something to call toxic and pick apart none of that matters any longer. The reputation of the relationship they had built until that moment disappeared for some viewers.

Also I feel like people lose the nuance of how their dynamic works - I’ve already seen ppl say that Leo has control issues and it’s just 😪🙄 eye roll worthy because if you understand their actual relationship you’d understand that yes Leo guides their relationship ship but Leo has all the real control. The moment he says ‘world stop’ everything stops. The series has shown several times this fact, even the set up that brought us to the finale. Despite all his talk of wanting to lock Fiat away - the reality is that when Fiat stated they should go back to friends Leo never tried to block him in, trap him, stop him, or even challenge him. If it’s not something Fiat wants or something that will make Fiat happy Leo won’t do it, he won’t be it. Because he has always been indulgent to Fiats want & needs (even when it caused himself pain). Even this so called desire to lock fiat away is permission by Fiat. And when they speak of lock away and tie up - it’s another reference to their BDSM relationship. Which is something else they’ve kept subtle but constant in the text. They even show this concept in action by having them talk about how possessive the Red suit makes Leo feel and the result is not banishing Fiat to the dungeon, it’s them not going back to the party and chooses to have sexy alone time again with an addition to Discipline involved (reward / punishment system).

😮‍💨 Ive spent way too much text on this but hey I guess it’s something else to try to explain in my analysis. As far as other sections of the story. The basketball game was lackluster. But I did really love the conversation that they had on the basketball court by themselves.

Like I mentioned in my post about episode 11 - we were really shown how the past affected Leo, his own fears kinda being brought forth and so I was really happy that they had Fiat apologize for the pain he cause Leo during that time. I love the fact that they both understood that they’re not perfect and that perfection may not be achievable but that didn’t invalidate their love for one another and their commitment to giving themselves to that love.

Something I wish would have been delved into was basketball…like why basketball. Why is it the thing important for them to share. I can’t remember it ever being really clarified in the text (it might have in TT2 but 😬 I’m not willing to watch again to find out 😅) but I did want to add this element into my analysis i if anyone else remembers the why being mentioned…let me know please 😊

I have a section in my complete analysis for Leo and Fiat called Surrender where I talk about how their journey has been one of surrendering themselves to one another and to their love completely. In this episode there were a few things that I could touch to speak about in that section so while I may not be happy about the entire episode there were bits that I can touch on and so I’m excited about that as always.